Transcription

1

2 Foreword from the Rt Hon William Hague MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I congratulate all my Colleagues, their staff and others who helped put together Fresh Start s Manifesto for Change. It is a well-researched and well-considered document full of powerful ideas for Britain s future in Europe and, indeed, for Europe s future. Many of the proposals are already Government policy, some could well become future Government or Conservative Party policy and some may require further thought. Europe is changing so fresh thinking is doubly welcome. It will be essential reading for all of us when we come to write the Conservative Party s next general election manifesto. I warmly congratulate everyone involved.

3 1

4 THE FRESH START PROJECT MANIFESTO FOR CHANGE A new vision for the UK in Europe January 2013 Contents 1. Introduction Trade Regional Development Funds Common Agricultural Policy Common Fisheries Policy Budget and Institutions Social and Employment Law Financial Services Energy Policing and Criminal Justice Immigration Defence

5 1. Introduction The status quo in the European Union is no longer an option. The Eurozone is facing up to the inevitable consequences of the financial crisis, and is moving towards fiscal and banking union. This is not a path that the British people will go down, and together with other non- Euro members of the EU, we must articulate and negotiate a new and different relationship for ourselves whilst remaining a full member of the EU. Our ambition is to build on the success of the single market. We want to ensure the EU institutions protect and deepen the single market. We also want to protect British sovereignty, ensuring that the British Parliament can decide what is best for Britain. We do not share the vision of ever closer union as set out in the EU treaties. The UK has to tread a fine line between fighting for the best interests of Britain, while at the same time supporting our fellow Member States who wish to pursue further and deeper fiscal and political integration. This manifesto sets out the new relationship for Britain within the EU that we want our Government to achieve. Our success in the negotiation will mean a new and sustainable position for the UK within the EU. We seek five significant revisions to the EU treaties: An emergency brake for any Member State regarding future EU legislation that affects financial services. The EU should repatriate competence in the area of social and employment law to Member States. Several EU members are already finding their attempts at structural reform are hampered by inflexible EU bureaucracy, and we should work with them to negotiate change. Failing that, we should seek an opt-out for the UK from existing EU social and employment law, and an emergency brake for any Member State regarding future EU legislation that affects this area. An opt-out for the UK from all existing EU policing and criminal justice measures not already covered by the Lisbon Treaty block opt-out. A new legal safeguard for the single market to ensure that there is no discrimination against non-eurozone member interests. The abolition of the Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. We also seek a number of other reforms that can be achieved within the current treaty framework, either by the UK on its own (such as improving scrutiny in the UK Parliament, removing gold-plating, invoking the block opt-out for some policing and criminal justice measures) or following negotiation with other Member States (such as reforms in the EU Budget, in CAP and CFP, and repatriating regional policy). 3

6 In this regard, we note that the Council has the power to request the repeal or amendment of mixed competence legislation, particularly to ensure respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This power is clearly referred to in Declaration 18 to the Lisbon Treaty and contained in Article 241 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). We urge the Government to take advantage of it. Where EU legislation threatens to cause significant harm in the context of UK practice, for example where patient safety in the NHS is put at risk, and appropriate reforms cannot be negotiated at the European level, the UK should consider unilaterally suspending the relevant obligations until a long-term solution can be negotiated. This manifesto proposes reforms in each of the following areas: Trade; Regional Development Policy; Common Agricultural Policy; Common Fisheries Policy; the EU Budget and Institutions; Social and Employment Law; Financial Services; Energy; Policing and Criminal Justice; Immigration; and Defence. If all proposals were implemented, the UK would make significant savings to its contribution to the EU budget. We would also secure control over important policy areas such as Criminal Justice, Employment, Financial Services, and Energy. Equally importantly, we want our Government to require the EU to go further in terms of trade liberalisation, both within and outside the EU. This Manifesto for Change is not about cherry picking ; its goal is rather to articulate the necessary reforms that would lead to a more sustainable relationship for the UK in the EU. Returning powers to Member States is not an impossible task. The 2001 Laeken Declaration by the European Council, which set up the Convention on the Future of Europe stated that the EU may adjust the division of competences.this can lead to restoring tasks to the member states. And the UK does have allies, with the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, saying on 29 November 2012 What we want to do is have a debate at the level of the 27 [member states] whether Europe is not involved in too many areas which could be done at the national level. Proposals for deeper fiscal and economic integration within the Eurozone will require changes to the EU treaties, presenting opportunities for the UK to also negotiate for treaty change. The recent agreement to introduce double majority voting within the European Banking Authority was a ground breaking decision that clearly points to a new realism for all EU members. This is an historic opportunity, both to articulate a vision for the UK in the EU, and to negotiate the treaty changes needed to make it reality. Whenever and however the British people are given the opportunity to decide the nature of the UK s future relationship with the EU, the Fresh Start Project believes that we should be focusing our efforts on a robust but achievable renegotiation of our terms of membership. 4

7 2. Trade The recommendations in this chapter would involve treaty change to introduce a new legal safeguard for the single market. Other recommendations would involve negotiation within the current structures. The EU is the world s largest economy and trading bloc, and accounts for some 40% of the UK s total exports of goods and services. We must maintain and expand the benefits of the single market. Non-tariff and technical barriers remain which limit EU growth. The UK should seek to secure a new legal safeguard for the single market and to push for genuine liberalisation of the single market in services. The UK should encourage the completion of more free trade agreements currently being negotiated by the EU, including with Canada, the USA, India and Mercosur Background The EU is the world s largest economy and trading bloc. It accounts for 29% of global economic output, 15% of global trade in goods and 24% of overall global trade. The EU accounts for some 40% of the UK s total exports of goods and services, making it the most important market for UK business. The crisis in the Eurozone has contributed to a downturn in UK exports to the EU. Although UK exports outside the EU have increased, they have not increased sufficiently to offset the decline in UK exports to the EU. There is a risk that UK businesses competing in growth markets outside the EU are undermined by over-regulation from the EU. External trade policy is an exclusive competence of the EU; under the Lisbon Treaty the European Parliament enjoys powers of co-decision over trade policy with the Council. The EU has negotiated a number of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with countries and regions across the world and negotiations are ongoing in other countries and regions. The benefits of the single market to the UK are more apparent in the trade of goods than of services. Services account for 71% of EU GDP, but only 3.2% of this is from intra-eu trade. The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, has estimated that the completion of the single market in services could increase EU GDP by 14% over ten years. The UK is the second most favoured global destination for foreign direct investment (FDI), and the first choice among global corporations for the location of their European HQs. This record is connected to the UK s access to the single market. The benefits of the single market, to UK exports and to FDI, are generally accepted to be the reason Britain entered the EU and the main reason for our remaining a member. If the UK decided that, overall, the benefits to EU membership were outweighed by the costs; there are three alternative models of trading with the EU that have been considered, but found wanting: Joining the European Economic Area (as for Norway) Negotiating a series of FTAs (as for Switzerland) 5

8 Negotiating a new Customs Union (as for Turkey) Norway, Switzerland and Turkey have preferential trading arrangements with EU Member States but are subject to bureaucratic rules of origin (though only in agricultural products in the case of Turkey). Most importantly, their trade with the EU relies on accepting or complying with many EU regulations over which they do not have a vote. This would be a disastrous position for the UK in terms of services trade. The customs union to which Turkey belongs is restricted to trade in goods and does not include services Proposals We must maintain and expand the benefits of the single market. The European Parliament tends to have a more protectionist outlook than the European Commission and such a tendency must be resisted. We need to lobby for genuine liberalisation of the single market in services. The UK should also seek a new legal safeguard for the single market. This would ensure that EU institutions and Eurozone members cannot discriminate against non-eurozone member interests. This would require a change to existing EU treaties. We should encourage the completion of more FTAs by the EU, including among others, with Canada, the USA, India and Mercosur. While this is the preferred route, if the EU proves unambitious or unsuccessful in these negotiations, it may be necessary for the UK to explore a means of negotiating more ambitious FTAs for trade in services with other economies in the future. The UK has deep and historic ties to many countries and regions of the world, including to the Commonwealth. We should deploy British commercial diplomacy and UK Trade & Investment to capitalise on these links and support the growth of British trade with growing markets outside the EU. In addition, large diaspora populations living in the UK, and their links to their countries of origin, should be used to harness trading relations with those countries. Government support for improving trade within and outside of the EU should extend beyond services provided by UKTI and the Foreign Office to the strengthening of business representation abroad as exemplified by the German Chambers of Commerce. There are effective British Chambers of Commerce abroad but the quality of representation is patchy. Government should work alongside Chambers to strengthen their capacity to promote UK exports. 6

9 3. Regional Development Funds The recommendations in this chapter would not involve treaty change. They would involve negotiation within the current structures, and the current long-term budget negotiations provide a once-in-seven-year opportunity to negotiate these changes. Almost 30% of the total EU budget is spent on regional development, to which the UK has made a net contribution of around 21 billion over The UK should regain control over its regional policy by negotiating to limit awarding EU funds to Member States with GDP per head of less than 90% of the EU average. This would benefit 23 out of 27 Member States, and enable regional spending to be focussed only on the poorer Member States. UK regional policy should then be implemented via a fifth pillar of the regional growth fund and a new infrastructure investment fund Background Since the late 1980s the EU has run its own regional policy, through the EU budget, that extends across all Member States. This policy is implemented through Structural Funds comprising the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). Almost 30% of the total EU budget was allocated to spending on the Structural Funds over the period This amounts to a sum of 280 billion and reflects a 43% increase as compared to the previous budgetary framework (the budget allocation for the Structural Funds was 195 billion). It is estimated that the UK will be making a net contribution to the Structural Funds (and to a much smaller EU Cohesion Fund that only gives money to the poorer Member States) of around 21 billion over This is the UK s contribution after the money it receives from the Structural Funds is taken into account. The Structural Funds have serious flaws. These include: Allocation of support is based on EU regions that are too large thus missing pockets of relative poverty and high unemployment. Planning of spending is often based on EU regions that do not fit local economic and political realities. They have a top-down structure; all spending plans require the approval of the European Commission and should comply with EU guidelines. This can frustrate local innovation. The EU will only provide some of the money for Structural Fund projects, with the remainder having to be found in the Member State in question. This can divert money from better-tailored national and local projects so as to unlock cash from the EU. There are no rigorous performance criteria linking disbursement of funds to clear results. Indeed, think-tank Open Europe found no conclusive evidence that the Structural Funds have had a positive overall impact on growth, jobs and / or regional convergence in the EU. 7

10 There are excessively bureaucratic rules on how the funds must be administered. The EU management of these funds is focused on compliance not outcomes, with a resulting spend on bureaucracy rather than innovative interventions. For wealthier Member States, the Structural Funds recycle large amounts of money, via Brussels, not only within the same country, but often within the same regions. This is an ineffective and costly means of supporting those regions which underperform at a national level. Negotiations among Member States and the EU institutions are now taking place over the shape and size of the Structural Funds for the period and new legislation on the funds will be required Proposals The Government should limit the award of funds to Member States with GDP per head of less than 90% of the EU average. This change should be a priority in ongoing and future EU budget negotiations since it would result in 23 of the 27 Member States making a net saving or receiving more. If such a change had been implemented between 2007 and 2013, the UK would have regained control of 13bn of spending, allowing the UK to maintain existing levels of spending and providing a 4.2bn net saving the Government could have chosen to retain or reinvest in the UK. The UK should also push for spending from the Structural Funds in the poorer Member States to be much better targeted on results, and commensurate with the ability of the recipients to manage and absorb the funding. The ongoing negotiations over the EU s Multiannual Financial Framework offer an opportunity to negotiate this change. If this opportunity is missed, the UK should make repatriation of regional policy a priority in the next budget round. For the UK, as a Member State which has the capacity to fund its own regional policy, the only reliable way of repatriating the Structural Funds would be to negotiate a secure settlement for those areas which are net beneficiaries of the funds within the UK. Between 2007 and 2013, only two regions in the UK (Cornwall, and West Wales and the Valleys) were net recipients. Many other regions of the UK received significant funds over this period, but they contributed far more to the EU Structural Funds via general taxation. The UK should continue to support these regions via a fifth pillar of the regional growth fund and a new infrastructure investment fund. In fact, if regional policy were repatriated, the savings from reduced administrative costs could be used to enhance the funds that were spent in these regions. The European Commission estimates that 3-4% of total funds are spent on administration. Such an approach would ensure that the UK would have control over spending within its less competitive regions ensuring an improved targeting of funds to projects and infrastructure bids which will make a real difference to the regional disparity in economic performance which currently scars the UK. A strong focus on performance and outcomes could replace an 8

11 overly burdensome EU compliance approach which places far too great an emphasis on administration of the funds rather than results. Repatriation of regional policy will be difficult politically as some EU countries currently receive a large benefit from structural funds. However, a healthy majority of Member States would benefit from such an approach and with clever negotiation, it should be possible to attract strong political support. 9

12 4. Common Agricultural Policy The recommendations in this chapter would not involve treaty change. They would involve negotiation within the current structures, and the current long-term budget negotiations provide a once-in-seven-year opportunity to negotiate these changes. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) accounts for around 40% of the EU budget, and the UK makes a net contribution of around 1 billion per year. EU farmers are also protected by tariffs, which distort trade, raise food prices in the UK, and harm farmers in the developing world. In the long-term, the UK should strive to return agricultural policy to Member States, but the political situation makes this almost impossible to achieve in the near future. The direct payments to farmers in Pillar 1 of the CAP should be phased out, and there should be a parallel reduction in red tape and regulation in order to ensure a globally competitive farming sector. Pillar 2 payments for environmental stewardship should be increased with new tradable environmental payments introduced to allow productive land to be more intensively farmed and marginal land to be more focussed on environmental stewardship Background The CAP accounts for around 40% of the EU budget and costs around 45 billion per year. Despite reforms which have begun to move the CAP towards a more market facing approach, it remains a hugely bureaucratic and expensive policy, and one to which the UK makes a net contribution of around 1 billion per year. Apart from the budgetary costs to HM Treasury, UK farming is also penalised by the CAP as the policy is not commonly implemented across the EU. UK farmers receive less money in both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 than their counterparts in most other EU countries. The cost of administering the CAP is also burdensome for the authorities and farmers. Market management support systems also tend to increase the price of food for consumers. EU tariffs on agricultural imports from outside the EU also often add substantially to the cost of food for EU consumers. The OECD estimated that in 2008, EU tariffs added approximately 25bn of costs to consumers across the EU. The European Commission has proposed a reformed CAP after This includes 30% "greening" of direct payments (where they are dependent on fulfilment of certain environmental actions) and new schemes for young and small farmers. It also proposes to cap payments to large farms and to have more equal distribution of payments to Member States in Pillar 1. However, it does not propose a reduction in the overall CAP budget. The CAP has evolved over time, but the Commission s proposals do not address the key challenge for the future of farming which is how to feed a growing and more affluent global 10

13 population. Estimates suggest that the world will need to produce 70% more food in the next forty years to meet global population growth. In the long-term, the UK should strive to return agricultural policy to Member States, and ultimately create a liberalised global market in agricultural products without significant subsidies. Member States could then implement measures to ensure the long-term viability of farms. However, political constraints, in particular the vested interests of farmers in the EU make this highly unlikely to achieve in the near term. The UK should focus efforts on reforming the CAP, and as there is scope for substantial renegotiation approximately every seven years, this presents an opportunity for reform Proposals Competitive Farming The Government should be ambitious in seeking to reduce the CAP budget. Pillar 1 accounts for 80% of the CAP and these direct payments must be phased out. This must be done uniformly across all 27 Member States to prevent market distortion and unfair distribution of taxpayers money. Cutting the amount of direct payments (principally the Single Farm Payment which accounts for 70% of Pillar 1) is vital if we are to have a market facing CAP that encourages innovation and allows our farming sector to compete in a global market where price volatility and increasing costs of production make reform all the more pressing. However, as direct subsidies are reduced for those commercially successful farms there must also be a parallel reduction in red tape and regulation. There is a huge cost of regulation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) with over half of these regulations and some 80% of the resulting cost to businesses coming from the EU. The agricultural sector in New Zealand can keep the cost of production low and compete in a global export market with the lowest level of government support to agriculture in the OECD at only 1% of farm income. This is only possible with light-touch regulation. In order for the UK to increase the competitiveness of its farming sector the Government must cut barriers to growth. The independent Task Force on Farming Regulation, chaired by Richard Macdonald, and commissioned by the Government has made several recommendations to slash red tape, many of which are now being implemented. However, the Government must go further. In the seven months following the publication of the Task Force s report Defra revoked 39 statutory instruments but introduced a further 41. There must also be an examination of the way EU regulations are transposed in this country to prevent so-called gold-plating of legislation that puts UK farmers and businesses at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of Europe. Defra engagement with EU institutions 11

14 should be greater, earlier, and in partnership with industry to shape better regulation. Greater Parliamentary scrutiny of EU regulation would help address this problem and the House of Commons should take forward the independent Task Force on Farming Regulation proposal that Delegated Legislation Committees consider substantive and amendable motions on statutory instruments, including those implementing EU laws Environmental Stewardship The CAP needs to be an agri-environmental land management policy not a social policy. The purpose must always be to provide food security and protect the environment. Reform of the CAP must recognise all the stewardship schemes that deliver excellent environmental results. The European Commission is attempting to use one conservation policy across 27 countries, making it unfit for the needs of individual nations and landscapes. It also does not take into account that the UK s systems of conservation are more advanced when compared to other EU Member States. Therefore, Pillar 2 should focus primarily on agri-environment schemes with the possibility of tradable environmental payments, which farmers could pass onto other farmers if they did not wish to carry out the environmental measures. Farmers in the uplands provide public good and are invaluable stewards of the natural landscape, protecting ecosystems and habitats for wildlife. They are also an important part of the rural community. It is for these reasons that livestock must continue to be kept on marginal hill land. However, because of the adverse conditions in which they farm, many would struggle to receive a financial return if the Single Farm Payment was reduced, and would be unable to compete with farms on more commercially viable land. It is therefore vital that as direct Pillar 1 subsidies are phased out, Pillar 2 payments for environmental stewardship are increased for upland farms. There should also be scope for farmers with grade 1 agricultural land and without conservation land to pass their environmental payments onto upland farmers. The overall CAP budget would still be significantly reduced International Trade The UK must be proactive in forging alliances with other EU Member States and put pressure on the EU to accelerate proposals to reduce tariffs on agricultural goods as part of the Doha Round. Pressure must also be brought to bear on the EU to conclude bilateral Free Trade Agreements with non-eu countries including for agricultural goods. The Government should also seek to increase UK trade with countries outside the EU, through bilateral channels. The Government should build on its recent successes in China and Russia unashamedly promoting British food and drink products in emerging markets. 12

15 5. Common Fisheries Policy The recommendations in this chapter would not involve treaty change. They would involve negotiation within the current structures. The EU s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a highly centralised way of managing fisheries resources and is hindering coastal economies, marine conservation and food security. The Government deserves credit for its tough stance on fish discards and decentralisation, and should continue to pursue substantive reforms to introduce catch quotas, rather than landing quotas. The UK should press the Commission to bring forward proposals to register the owners of fishing quotas. The UK should also negotiate to regain control of our territorial waters (the 6 to 12 mile limit), and to complete the process of regionalising control of fisheries Background The EU s CFP is a highly centralised way of managing fisheries resources in Europe. In fact, all the key decisions are taken by national fisheries ministers in Brussels, based on proposals from the European Commission. It has fundamentally failed as a fisheries management policy and instead hinders coastal economies, marine conservation and food security. CFP reform takes place every ten years. The European Commission put forward its latest proposals in July 2011, and aims to have the reformed CFP in place in The on-going negotiations therefore present the UK with a unique window of opportunity to push for comprehensive reform. The CFP has so far failed to ensure the sustainability of fisheries in Europe. On the contrary, the existing system of fixed fishing quotas, which is based on the quantity of fish that is landed, not on how much fish is actually caught, has encouraged the practice of discards unwanted fish being caught and then thrown overboard, dead or alive. According to the European Commission, it is estimated that in European fisheries 1.7 million tonnes of fish are discarded every year, a staggering 23% of total catches. In 2010, UK vessels discarded an estimated 51,697 tonnes of fish. EU fishing rules also force the UK to grant foreign vessels access to part of its territorial waters, putting small fishermen and therefore smaller coastal communities at a particular disadvantage. 13

16 5.2. Proposals Discards The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) needs to remain ambitious on the sensitive issue of discards, or else face the risk of the current negotiations ending up with nothing meaningful being achieved. The Commission s plans for CFP reform are a step in the right direction and the Minister responsible for Fisheries, Richard Benyon MP, deserves credit for his tough stance on fish discards. However, there are several areas in which the UK should either push for greater clarity in the Commission s proposal and others where more fundamental reform should be pursued that go well beyond the current proposal. The UK must shift from the current system of landing quotas to a new system of catch quotas under which fishermen would be obliged to count all the fish that they catch against their quotas, not just the fish they land. Evidence from pilots in the UK and in other Member States, such as Denmark, suggests that catch quotas can be an effective way to reduce discards Territorial Waters The Government must also set its sights on regaining control of our territorial waters (the 6 to 12 mile limit), allowing the UK to reserve greater access to these waters for the small-scale fleet. In order to achieve this while respecting the UK s EU commitments, the UK should seek an EU agreement to denounce the 1964 European Fisheries Convention. We also need to support our smaller in-shore fishing fleets by helping them with more fishing rights. As part of this the Government would continue to recognise those countries that have had historical access to our seas prior to the inception of CFP. Countries like Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany have been fishing in our waters historically for many years Regionalisation The Commission s proposal for regionalisation of the CFP currently only deals with devolution of powers to individual Member States, but fails to lay down a formal mechanism for regional groupings of Member States to work together. As it stands, the proposal creates legal uncertainty and could ultimately lead to the Commission gaining more powers. The UK should push for genuine regionalisation of the CFP. Under this scenario, the Commission would still propose a number of long-term framework objectives to be agreed by the Council, while day-to-day management would be handled by regional groupings of Member States surrounding a specific sea basin. For example, the Commission would propose long-term targets for fish mortality over a period of ten years, within which regional groupings of Member States would work on the detail of fisheries management at the sea 14

17 basin or national level. Disputes within a regional grouping of Member States would be settled by co-decision between the Council and the European Parliament on the basis of a Commission proposal Final Points It is vital that the UK speaks with a single voice in Brussels. Greater coordination between central government and the devolved administrations could certainly increase the UK s negotiating strength on CFP reform. More broadly the UK must support measures to promote less popular fish through changing Government Buying Standards and by increasing the public s awareness of the benefits of eating fish. The Fish Fight Campaign has shown that there is widespread public support for reform of the CFP and that less popular fish can be promoted through a concerted campaign. A total ban on the discarding of fish and greater management of our 6 to 12 mile limits in the short term will help to correct many of the inequalities and mismanagement of the CFP. The UK should also push for the Commission to bring forward proposals for the registration of landing quotas. In the long term, the Government must look towards a totally new fishing policy run by Member States and in that way Britain could have much more control of fishing in our own waters. 15

18 6. Budget and Institutions The recommendations in this chapter would involve treaty change in order to abolish the Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, and the Economic and Social Committee. The current long-term budget negotiations provide a once-in-sevenyear opportunity to negotiate other changes to the budget. We should continue to take the lead in securing a new EU budget that improves effectiveness at no extra cost to any European taxpayer. The UK rebate is justified and should be defended. Reform of the EU institutions is politically and symbolically important and would serve to demonstrate the EU s awareness of its Member States hardships. We should substantially cut administrative costs in the European Commission, European Parliament and abolish a number of EU quangos, which in some cases would require treaty change. The UK should press for a new Freedom of Information Act for all European institutions Background The EU is in the process of negotiating the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), a budget ceiling covering The Commission s proposal totals 1trn in commitments that, including off-budget items, represents a 5% real terms increase on the payments of the current MFF. The UK Government s position is to argue for at best a cut, and at worst a real terms freeze, although the House of Commons voted for a cut in a non-binding motion. The MFF is in clear need of significant overhaul to reduce its overall scale, to eliminate the gap between commitments and payments, and to allow more flexibility so that funds can be reallocated to meet need. In MFF negotiations, the UK should focus on three key areas. Reforms to the CAP and the Structural Funds, which are the two largest areas of EU spending, are discussed elsewhere in this manifesto. The third area for focus is reform of the EU institutions. Symbolically and politically, the EU institutions represent the empire building of the federalist agenda. Agreement on reform should be possible because Member States themselves will not lose out. It is in every European taxpayer s interest for the EU to spend their money more carefully and effectively. Finding institutional savings would demonstrate the EU s awareness of its Member States hardships, which as yet it has patently failed to do Proposals MFF The UK should be ambitious in its negotiating position. Given our alliances, particularly with other net contributors, the UK should continue to take the lead in securing a deal that 16

19 ensures reform and improves effectiveness. The fixed 2% increase per year remains the fallback and termination of the MFF (meaning the Commission would propose a budget to be passed by the Council via qualified majority voting, without a ceiling) would be a highly risky move for Brussels. The UK net contribution to the budget was 9 billion in 2012, even after the rebate, making us one of the largest net contributors. Rather than accepting criticism of the current size of the rebate, we should remind Member States that the previous Government had already ceded a significant reduction in the rebate in exchange for promise of CAP reform. Our Government has pledged to protect the rebate. Handing away part of the rebate, like Tony Blair, achieved nothing in the past and we can have no confidence that it will in the future European Commission Institutional reform should start with the Commission. The EU s ambitions for centralisation have resulted in significant increases in administrative spending, despite the austerity it has demanded of many Member States. Administrative costs should be cut by 15%, saving 867 million per annum. That may require the Commission to increase its proposed staff cut of just 0.5% after Croatia s accession to 10%. Other efficiency savings should include a reduction in the tiers of management, salaries, allowances, and changing the pension age and terms. The cost of pensions for Commission staff is forecast to double to 2 billion by 2045, and it should be noted that all civil servants in the top two grades earn more than our Prime Minister. We therefore welcome the Prime Minister s stance at the budget summit in November He is right to press for a 10% cut in the overall pay bill, and for reforms to automatic promotion, special tax treatment, and pension rights for Brussels staff. By participating in its own cuts and efficiency programmes, the Commission will show empathy with all European citizens, reflecting the spending cuts which government departments across the Member States are being forced to make. The 27 Commissioners should lead by example and reform their own pay and pension arrangements European Parliament The UK Government should continue its opposition to the three-city functioning of the European Parliament. Not only would the abolition of the Strasbourg seat save at least 180 million per annum, it would also be a symbol of the ability of the EU to reform itself. The European Parliament itself has voted to stop the "Strasbourg circus". Treaty change is required for this measure. The UK should build consensus among Member States, many of whom have been vocal in their condemnation of the Strasbourg seat, and whose MEPs themselves voted against its continued functioning. The Secretariat of the 17

20 European Parliament, with over 4000 officials, is based in Luxembourg. This Secretariat should relocate entirely to Brussels. Other institutional reforms the UK should press for include removing excessive travel allowances and services, a review of all other allowances and privileges including the special taxation rate, mandatory production of receipts for all expenses and the abolition of funding to political parties and foundations. Projects that should be scrapped immediately include the House of European History, which is forecast to cost over 150 million to set up Quangos and other bodies EU spending on quangos has jumped by 33.2% since Many agencies duplicate work, and reinforce the federal agenda rather than the subsidiarity principle. Moreover, they have a strong incentive to spend money to justify their own existence, often directly on selfpromotion. The UK should press for the abolition of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the Committee of the Regions. The EESC was created in 1957 as a proto-parliament but now acts as a bridge between Europe and organised civil society. It is an advisory body, dominated in large part by unions, and serves little purpose. Its budget is 130 million. The Committee of the Regions includes councillors, members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly. Putting European directives into effect through local government does not require a separate body, and should be delivered through Member State government processes. Abolishing the Committee of the Regions would save 85 million per annum. Abolition of these bodies will require treaty change. A significant reduction in the budget to leave only a token amount could be accomplished through negotiations on the MFF and would accomplish the same thing. Failing that, a fundamental review of activities and a budget reduction of 50% is required to focus activity. The UK should also press for savings to be made by abolishing the two human rights agencies (saving 28 million), the four workplace and employment agencies (saving 73 million), the food safety agency (saving 78 million), and the numerous self-propagandising educational and cultural bodies (saving at least 47 million) Transparency The UK should press for a new Freedom of Information Act for all European institutions. All spending over 500 should be published, including any expenses. The Court of Auditors should be given appropriate resources and powers to ensure that the EU achieves a level of accountability suitable for a first world organisation. The UK should work with other Member States to introduce a mechanism to prevent an increase in any budget that has not been signed off by the Court of Auditors. 18

> 10 DOWNING STREET LONDON SWtA 2AA THE PRIME MINISTER 10 November 2015 A NEW SETTLEMENT FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM IN A REFORMED EUROPEAN UNION Thank you for inviting me to write setting out the areas where

What can business expect if Britain remains? 1. Issues impacting all businesses Trade prospects with, and market access to: European Union member states, non-eu member states with existing EU trade agreements,

Brussels, 12 June 2014 Opinion.05 CEEP OPINION ON THE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (TTIP) Executive Summary Focus 1: The respect of the EU Treaty Principle and EU political balance on

A EUROPE THAT WORKS EUROPEAN LIBERALS ARE THE FIRST TO ADOPT ELECTION MANIFESTO In 2014, we will have the opportunity to shape the future of Europe at a crucial time in the history of our continent. In

PUBLIC SERVICES ELECTION General Election Manifesto 2015 Page 2 This Election Matters The vast majority of UNISON Scotland s members work in areas which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but even

ANNUAL 2008 SESSION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE ON THE WTO Geneva, 11-12 September 2008 Organized jointly by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Parliament Item 3(a) PC-WTO/2008/3(a)-R.2

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: ELECTORAL PROCEDURES The procedures for electing the European Parliament are governed both by European legislation defining rules common to all Member States and by specific national

Presentation by Mr. Richard Bruton, Minister of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the IMCO Committee of the European Parliament, Brussels Wednesday 23 rd January 2013 Check against delivery Honourable

SUBMISSION FROM CBI SCOTLAND CBI Scotland welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Scottish Government s paper Corporation Tax: Discussion Paper Options for Reform. We note that the questions contained

MINISTERE DE L ALIMENTATION, DE L AGRICULTURE ET DE LA PECHE Franco German position for a strong Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2013 14.09.2010 - New challenges and expectations for food, biomass and

WOULD BREXIT BE BETTER FOR RETAIL? Autumn 2015 would brexit be better for retail? Date: Autumn 2015 contents 3 FOREWORD 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 at a glance 6 TRADE If the UK left the EU could we trade more

European and External Relations Committee EU Budget Review inquiry Written submission received from COSLA Thank you for the invitation to participate in this second round of the EU Budget Review Inquiry

Civitas: Online Report The Costs and Benefits of the European Union Would we be better off if we left? If the UK were to leave the EU, there would be no net loss of jobs or trade. In addition, we would

The Rt Hon George Osborne MP Chancellor of the Exchequer HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ 22 November 2013 Growth and Britain's Number One Manufacturing Exporter From the Chief Executive

PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UK THE CONSERVATIVES PROPOSALS FOR CHANGING BRITAIN S HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT Britain has a long history of protecting human rights at home and standing

A Short Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts 1. A new type of NHS hospital 1.1 The next five years will see major changes to the way hospital services are provided. Local communities and staff are to be given

Contribution of the Kent, Greater Essex and East Sussex Local Enterprise Partnership to the consultation on the conclusions of the Fifth Cohesion Report on Economic, social and territorial cohesion: the

European Council Brussels, 2 February 2016 (OR. en) EUCO 4/16 NOTE To: Subject: Delegations Draft Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning a New Settlement

What is Diplomatic Excellence? Diplomatic Excellence is the FCO s reform and improvement agenda (2011-15) with the ambition of being the best Diplomatic Service in the world and the best we can be. The

Welfare Reform, Welfare Rights and the Hybrid Nature of the British Welfare State By Alex Robertson University of Edinburgh The British Welfare State Single insurance fund, administered by state. Covers

EU s Asylum Policy and the Danish Justice and Home Affairs Opt-Out Marlene Wind, Professor and Director of Centre for European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen Professor

THE COST OF TAXES ON JOBS AROUND THE WORLD HOW SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS AND OTHER EMPLOYER COSTS IMPACT JOB CREATION AND WAGE GROWTH IN DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FEBRUARY 2016 CONTENTS Introduction 3 1 Key Findings

Jean-Claude Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission Mission letter Brussels, 10 September 2014 Federica Mogherini High Representative of the Union for Foreign Policy and Security Policy/Vice-President

CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT S REVIEW OF THE BALANCE OF COMPETENCES BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION Police and Criminal Justice LEGAL ANNEX Section 1: Development of the EU s competence

Minister Shatter presents Presidency priorities in the JHA area to European Parliament 22 nd January 2013 The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter TD, today presented the Irish Presidency

INTRODUCTION We have received a Liberal Democrat document by Paul Burstow MP the Liberal Democrat Minister for Care Services. In the document Paul Burstow tells Liberal Democrat MPs how to respond to 38

Tax-free profits Welcome to the geography of tax avoidance 1 Tax-free profits International investment flows are often concentrated in countries with relatively small economies. Why? Welcome to the world

NEGOTIATING FRAMEWORK FOR TURKEY Principles governing the negotiations 1. The negotiations will be based on Turkey's own merits and the pace will depend on Turkey's progress in meeting the requirements

Rights and obligations of European Union membership April 2016 Rights and obligations of European Union membership Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 7 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

! english eu-upplysningen EU-upplysningen Rapid, comprehensible and impartial information about the EU What does it mean to be a member of the EU? How do the Government and the Riksdag work with EU issues?

Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) CONTRIBUTION OF THE XLI COSAC Prague, 10-12 May 2009 1. Current Economic and Financial Situation 1.1

UNDERSTANDING PARITY DEPARTMENTAL BRIEFING PAPER Summary Fundamentally, the policy of parity ensures that a person in Northern Ireland has the same benefit entitlements as his or her counterpart in England,

ORAL STATEMENT ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE REVIEW FINAL REPORT: 13 SEPTEMBER 2011 Members will have heard me speak previously, in this chamber and elsewhere, of the opportunities that the devolution of justice

Eurocentrum Praha 4 th October 2007 Portuguese Presidency of the European Union A stronger Europe for a better world A stronger Europe for a better world is the motto of the current Portuguese Presidency.

Backing the Tourism Sector A Five Point Plan Barbara Hepworth Museum Cornwall Prime Minister David Cameron Millions of overseas tourists visit the UK every year and most take in the sights of London. But

Brief March 2013 Full speed ahead An industrial strategy for the UK automotive sector David Leach industrial strategy CBI email: david.leach@cbi.org.uk The automotive industry is the UK s largest sector

Brexit legal consequences for commercial parties Potential mechanisms for a UK exit from the European Union and what follows next May 2016 Issue in focus The European Union is governed by two Treaties,

INQUIRY ON THE PUBLIC SERVICE OMBUDSMAN FOR WALES Dr Richard Kirkham, School of Law, University of Sheffield 20 March 2015 Some introductory comments 1. As well as writing extensively on the Ombudsman,

1 Response from REGLEG to the Consultation on the Common Strategic Framework REGLEG welcomes the early publication of the Commission Staff Working Document Elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014

www.food.gov.uk FINAL BUSINESS AND REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Food Hygiene (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 To provide for the enforcement, in Scotland, of Commission Regulation (EC) 1019/2008

Business Plan 2015/18 BUSINESS PLAN 2015/18 FORWARD In May 2015 a new Government will be ushered in. However, whatever the outcome the same challenge remains, to tackle local government's projected 12.4

ANNEX A CABINET OFFICE THE CIVIL SERVICE NATIONALITY RULES Introduction The Civil Service Nationality Rules concern eligibility for employment in the Civil Service on the grounds of nationality and must

Speech by Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Simon Coveney TD on Reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Dáil Éireann Dublin, Ireland 14 March 2013 I am pleased to have the opportunity

Presentation by Mr Richard Bruton, Minister of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the Industry Research and Energy Committee of the European Parliament, Brussels Wednesday 23/1/2013 Check against Delivery

Policy 2014 SMALL BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS Increase the portion of government procurement undertaken by small businesses by $300 million per annum by the end of our first term, over and above the $200 million

The Facts about Facility Time for Union Reps Trades Union Congress October 2011 Introduction Trade union facility time and facilities are the time and resources (access to ICT and accommodation etc.) that

SHAPING THE FUTURE OF EQUALITY POLICIES IN THE EU JOINT HIGH LEVEL EVENT ON NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUALITY, ROME, 6-7 NOVEMBER 2014 SUMMARY AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS I. CONTEXT The Italian Presidency of the

IFA SUBMISSION TO THE DAIRY FORUM 9 th March, 2016 Introduction IFA welcomes the positive influence the Dairy Forum s direction, given by Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney last September, had on the

OUR FUTURE TOGETHER New Zealand Settlement Strategy Foreword Over the last 20 years, the world has changed there is more competition for skills, more risks at the border and people are more mobile. These

Libel Reform Campaign Initial summary assessment of the Defamation Bill The Defamation Bill has been agreed by Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent to become the Defamation Act 2013. We have campaigned

ETI PERSPECTIVE 2020: A FIVE YEAR STRATEGY Introduction This document is the final and Board approved version of ETI s strategic directions based on the ETI Board meeting discussion of 12 th March 2015.

DTI Consultation on Proposals for a Special Administrator Regime for Energy Network Companies Ofgem s Response June 2003 Introduction Ofgem welcomes the DTI consultation on proposals for a special administrator

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRADE OUTSIDE THE EU Why leaving the EU takes the UK into a world of new opportunity. THE TRUTH ABOUT TRADE OUTSIDE THE EU UK EXPORTS TO EU IN 2013 WERE 225 BILLION WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE

Excerpt from a report by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Össur Skarphéðinsson, on foreign and international affairs (Presented to the Alþingi during the 136 th session of the legislative assembly 2008-2009)

PAPER EA022 A series of background briefings on the policy issues in the May 2015 UK General Election Should We Stay or Should We Go? The economic consequences of leaving the EU Swati Dhingra, Gianmarco

Achievements and challenges of the single market S&D responses to citizens top 10 concerns The European economic model must be based on three principles: competition which stimulates, co-operation which

Opportunities for Growth in the UK Events Industry Roles & responsibilities A report to the All Party Parliamentary Group For Events Presented jointly by the October 2011 1 Contents 1.0 The UK events industry

The audit and inspection of local authorities Memorandum from the Department for Communities and Local Government 1. Summary and introduction The Audit Commission was set up in 1983 to audit local authorities,

Explanatory Memorandum to the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 This Explanatory Memorandum has been prepared by the Environment and Sustainable Development Department and

Council of Australian Governments Business Advisory Forum Canberra, 6 December 2012 Communiqué The second meeting of the Business Advisory Forum to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), convened

Knowledge Practical guide to competition damages claims in the UK Practical guide to competition damages claims in the UK Contents Reforms to damages litigation in the UK for infringements of competition